July 13, 2009 [Issue 3075] void delegate(const(void)[]) should be implicitly convertable to void delegate(void[]) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to davidl@126.com | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3075 --- Comment #19 from Sobirari Muhomori <maxmo@pochta.ru> 2009-07-13 01:45:06 PDT --- *fix context of overriding v_V -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
July 13, 2009 [Issue 3075] void delegate(const(void)[]) should be implicitly convertable to void delegate(void[]) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to davidl@126.com | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3075 --- Comment #20 from Sobirari Muhomori <maxmo@pochta.ru> 2009-07-13 01:49:49 PDT --- What on earth am I writing?.. Now I see how function casting can be connected with overriding, but what this has to do with overloading? So now contravariance is not supported at all for overriding? Only exact match? I don't see how this can conflict with function casting. Aren't the contextes different? In the context of overriding check for exact match, in the context of overload resolution check for implicit cast as for any other type (this adds consistency imho). They hardly can clash, only if the compiler is written so that they clash. I suppose no algorithm for implicit function casting was written. It seems it only needs to be written, though I'm not familiar with compiler intrinsics, so I can lose some important details :) -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
December 28, 2009 [Issue 3075] void delegate(const(void)[]) should be implicitly convertable to void delegate(void[]) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to davidl@126.com | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3075 --- Comment #21 from Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy@yahoo.com> 2009-12-28 08:41:46 PST --- Just submitted bug 3656, which might require contravariance for delegates to make it work properly... Consider that a function foo: foo(void delegate() dg) { dg(); } should compile with the following: class A { void f1() const {} void f2() {} } void main() { A a = new A; foo(&a.f1); foo(&a.f2); } But if bug 3656 is resolved (and it must be to preserve const), then there is no current way to mark foo as not caring whether the delegate is const or not. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
June 16, 2011 [Issue 3075] void delegate(const(void)[]) should be implicitly convertable to void delegate(void[]) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to davidl@126.com | http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3075 yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eatingstaples@gmail.com --- Comment #22 from yebblies <yebblies@gmail.com> 2011-06-15 23:36:12 PDT --- *** Issue 5471 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation